Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic returntype?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 10:40:26
On 26 May 2015 at 14:07, Peter Dimov wrote:
> I also disagree with the implicit expectation that a programming style based
> on expected<T, error_code> will take the world by storm. It won't.
> Exceptions are much more convenient and make for clearer code. C++
> programmers are not Haskell programmers and don't want to be; they don't use
> monads and do-statements. There is no need.
Get some experience programming in Rust and come back to me.
I think you'll realise that monadic programming is going to become
huge in C++ 11/14 in the near future in those use case scenarios
where it is far better than all other idioms. We just need a decent
not-Haskell monad implementation that doesn't get in the way of C++
programming. But for sure, this is a personal opinion, and yours is
just is valid as mine right now until we see where the code trends
BTW for reference the Rust Result<> monad *does* get in the way. I
think we can do a lot better in C++, something more natural to
program with and use.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk